Athens 2004 Olympics Medal Table...

[booger711]

time to revise your topic subtitle

 

[Pocatello]

China's olympic team is getting stronger since the Australian summer olympics, their goal is to be the leader in 2008, in their own country. The Chinese has learned to use a lot of techniques to train and raise athletes just like the Soviet Union of old. On the other hand, Russia is fading away fast. I'm glad to see the US win two gold medals in one of the hardest sport, all-around gymnastics

 

[huesmann]

Who's gettin pwned now, eh?

 

[kaizersose]

Originally posted by: booger711
time to revise your topic subtitle

look at the events that china has golds in: badmitton, synchronized diving, shooting, judo and weightlifting.

i will give them credit for the weightlifting, swimming and judo medals. widely contested sporting events and highly competitive. synchronized diving, shooting and badmitton should not be olympic sports. i love shooting and badmitton is pretty fun but come on, this is getting crazy. what's next, bowling?

 

[Pocatello]

what's next, bowling?

Don't speak such evil word, it may come true.

 

[Schadenfroh]

USA back on top

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Pocatello

what's next, bowling?

Don't speak such evil word, it may come true.

why not? people want poker as a event.

 

[Nitemare]

And to all the pantywaists that were complaining about US being ranked because China had more Gold...


(_|_)
..:thumbsup:


Suck it :evil:

 

[booger711]

Originally posted by: Pocatello

what's next, bowling?

Don't speak such evil word, it may come true.

or even worse: poker

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: Pocatello

what's next, bowling?

Don't speak such evil word, it may come true.

Don't they already have curling?

 

[RabidMongoose]

I wonder how many people living, training, or going to school in the US have won medals so far. It seems that a lot of athletes from other countries actually live in the US.

 

[welst10]

Originally posted by: Pocatello
China's olympic team is getting stronger since the Australian summer olympics, their goal is to be the leader in 2008, in their own country. The Chinese has learned to use a lot of techniques to train and raise athletes just like the Soviet Union of old. On the other hand, Russia is fading away fast. I'm glad to see the US win two gold medals in one of the hardest sport, all-around gymnastics

you know why? coz US has nothing to lose on gymnastics (US men never won gold on all-around). So thry were not nervous.

 

[welst10]

Originally posted by: Nitemare
And to all the pantywaists that were complaining about US being ranked because China had more Gold...


(_|_)
..:thumbsup:


Suck it :evil:

WTF are you talking about? Official olympics rankings have always been listed by gold count first, then by total count. Go to athens 2004 and sydney 2000 websites and see for yourself.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: freegeeks
it's a bit ridiculous to compare countries with population numbers that are so different IMHO

a better way would be the number of medals in relation with the population of a country


US = 29 medals
population=293 million
1 medal for every 10 million Americans

china=22 medals
population=1298 million
1 medal for every 59 million Chinese

EU-15=55 medals
population=381 million
1 medal for every 7 million Europeans

The Netherlands is very impressive
population=16 million
medals=9
1 medal for every 1,7 million pothead :shocked: (j/k)

Australia=16 medals
population=19 million
1 medal for every 1,2 million Australians :shocked:


etc.....

Yes, I'm bored at work

It's also really unfair to compare with medals per capita. Each country can at the most send only one team or 2 or 3 or so competitors per event. China can't send out 100,000 athletes even if it 100,000 capable athletes. The opportunities to win a medal are not in proportion to the country's population.

The EU would also have a larger pool of candidates at the Olympics than any single country so it makes no sense to group it all as one unless it sends all of its athletes under one 'country'.

In the end, everyone should just be happy that their countries are at the Olympics trying their best.

 

[Ranger X]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: Pocatello

what's next, bowling?

Don't speak such evil word, it may come true.

why not? people want poker as a event.

PokerInAthens.org

I think I'm happy with what we have right now. We don't need to add more silly non-sport, like Poker.

 

[TheBDB]

Originally posted by: welst10

Originally posted by: Pocatello
China's olympic team is getting stronger since the Australian summer olympics, their goal is to be the leader in 2008, in their own country. The Chinese has learned to use a lot of techniques to train and raise athletes just like the Soviet Union of old. On the other hand, Russia is fading away fast. I'm glad to see the US win two gold medals in one of the hardest sport, all-around gymnastics

you know why? coz US has nothing to lose on gymnastics (US men never won gold on all-around). So thry were not nervous.

You are an idiot.

 

[Kaiser__Sose]

Trinidad got a Medal.. yea yea...
now we just have to wait for the 100m and 200m sprints to collect a couple more..

 

[shinseik]

So why is Russia doing so bad all of a sudden?

 

[CTrain]

Originally posted by: shinseik
So why is Russia doing so bad all of a sudden?

Because the old Russia that we know of have split into smaller entity.

 

[stonecold3169]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: freegeeks
it's a bit ridiculous to compare countries with population numbers that are so different IMHO

a better way would be the number of medals in relation with the population of a country


US = 29 medals
population=293 million
1 medal for every 10 million Americans

china=22 medals
population=1298 million
1 medal for every 59 million Chinese

EU-15=55 medals
population=381 million
1 medal for every 7 million Europeans

The Netherlands is very impressive
population=16 million
medals=9
1 medal for every 1,7 million pothead :shocked: (j/k)

Australia=16 medals
population=19 million
1 medal for every 1,2 million Australians :shocked:


etc.....

Yes, I'm bored at work

It's also really unfair to compare with medals per capita. Each country can at the most send only one team or 2 or 3 or so competitors per event. China can't send out 100,000 athletes even if it 100,000 capable athletes. The opportunities to win a medal are not in proportion to the country's population.

The EU would also have a larger pool of candidates at the Olympics than any single country so it makes no sense to group it all as one unless it sends all of its athletes under one 'country'.

In the end, everyone should just be happy that their countries are at the Olympics trying their best.

I agree that we should all be happy at every countries performance, as none of us normal people could compete out there at all.

However, as far as capita goes, look at iit like this; Chinas population dwarfs the USA. So, lets say that, as with most events, all of the people sent by a country are on at least fairly even footing. Then, China, having magnitudes more people to choose from, should statistically speaking have a better chance at getting a phenom (sp?) out of the available pool of people.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: stonecold3169

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: freegeeks
it's a bit ridiculous to compare countries with population numbers that are so different IMHO

a better way would be the number of medals in relation with the population of a country


US = 29 medals
population=293 million
1 medal for every 10 million Americans

china=22 medals
population=1298 million
1 medal for every 59 million Chinese

EU-15=55 medals
population=381 million
1 medal for every 7 million Europeans

The Netherlands is very impressive
population=16 million
medals=9
1 medal for every 1,7 million pothead :shocked: (j/k)

Australia=16 medals
population=19 million
1 medal for every 1,2 million Australians :shocked:


etc.....

Yes, I'm bored at work

It's also really unfair to compare with medals per capita. Each country can at the most send only one team or 2 or 3 or so competitors per event. China can't send out 100,000 athletes even if it 100,000 capable athletes. The opportunities to win a medal are not in proportion to the country's population.

The EU would also have a larger pool of candidates at the Olympics than any single country so it makes no sense to group it all as one unless it sends all of its athletes under one 'country'.

In the end, everyone should just be happy that their countries are at the Olympics trying their best.

I agree that we should all be happy at every countries performance, as none of us normal people could compete out there at all.

However, as far as capita goes, look at iit like this; Chinas population dwarfs the USA. So, lets say that, as with most events, all of the people sent by a country are on at least fairly even footing. Then, China, having magnitudes more people to choose from, should statistically speaking have a better chance at getting a phenom (sp?) out of the available pool of people.

There are lots of advantages and disadvantages. Culture, population, facilities, etc. Like someone said in this thread or another, India has a billion people but they've only won one medal because they have a poor sports culture.

 

[Pocatello]

Originally posted by: TheBDB

Originally posted by: welst10

Originally posted by: Pocatello
China's olympic team is getting stronger since the Australian summer olympics, their goal is to be the leader in 2008, in their own country. The Chinese has learned to use a lot of techniques to train and raise athletes just like the Soviet Union of old. On the other hand, Russia is fading away fast. I'm glad to see the US win two gold medals in one of the hardest sport, all-around gymnastics

you know why? coz US has nothing to lose on gymnastics (US men never won gold on all-around). So thry were not nervous.

You are an idiot.

Why so hostile? I'm just clad USA won the all-around.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: stonecold3169

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: freegeeks
it's a bit ridiculous to compare countries with population numbers that are so different IMHO

a better way would be the number of medals in relation with the population of a country


US = 29 medals
population=293 million
1 medal for every 10 million Americans

china=22 medals
population=1298 million
1 medal for every 59 million Chinese

EU-15=55 medals
population=381 million
1 medal for every 7 million Europeans

The Netherlands is very impressive
population=16 million
medals=9
1 medal for every 1,7 million pothead :shocked: (j/k)

Australia=16 medals
population=19 million
1 medal for every 1,2 million Australians :shocked:


etc.....

Yes, I'm bored at work

It's also really unfair to compare with medals per capita. Each country can at the most send only one team or 2 or 3 or so competitors per event. China can't send out 100,000 athletes even if it 100,000 capable athletes. The opportunities to win a medal are not in proportion to the country's population.

The EU would also have a larger pool of candidates at the Olympics than any single country so it makes no sense to group it all as one unless it sends all of its athletes under one 'country'.

In the end, everyone should just be happy that their countries are at the Olympics trying their best.

I agree that we should all be happy at every countries performance, as none of us normal people could compete out there at all.

However, as far as capita goes, look at iit like this; Chinas population dwarfs the USA. So, lets say that, as with most events, all of the people sent by a country are on at least fairly even footing. Then, China, having magnitudes more people to choose from, should statistically speaking have a better chance at getting a phenom (sp?) out of the available pool of people.

They should perform better in a statistical sense, but not necessarily in exact proportion with its population.